Sexual Orientation vs. Race

[mrstickball]

WessleWoggle said:

TheRealMafoo said:

WessleWoggle said:

mrstickball said:
The issue is that we've blurred the lines between what marriage is (a union between a man and a woman, ordained by God) and a civil union (co-habitation with legal rights).

 

The issue is, marriage is not for you or religion to define.

It's for the government to define, and they shouldn't define it religiously.

What? That's like saying:

The issue is, god is not for you or religion to define.

It's for the government to define, and they shouldn't define it religiously.


Marriage is a product of religion. The problem is government recognizing marriage as anything, not that religion shouldn't define it.

God is for the individual to define, not the government. Your parody of my statement makes no sense.

Marriage is not the product of religion. Where do you get this from? Study some tribal people and you'll plainly see marriage comes about because they don't want men to fuck women like wild animals. They want men to care for a women they fuck, and care for the children that come from it. That's where marriage comes from.

The idea of a sacremental, special, union between 2 people is from religion. Since the dawn of Judiaism some ~3,000 years ago, marriage was institutionalized as a specific ritual with specific contexts. That's our basis the current definition of marriage. That's why we say if you want to do Civil unions, do civil unions. But the current context of marriage has been defined by religion. Like it or not, that's how it's been defined.

But if you want to open the doors for a civil union to be between 2 of anything for legal/financial benefits, feel free to argue that in your local country. I just don't like the idea of equating gay marriage (which is an absolute rarity in your gay culture, and you know it) and normal marriage which has is a far different beast.